If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Cerezha, just in case you missed it.

Originally Posted by Michael Palmer

I diagnose every dead colony...and this winter is no different that any other. The majority of losses were from varroa. There were a handful of queenless and drone layer colonies, and two colonies in the operation starved.

That statement does not mesh with the idea that neonicitinoid treated crops should be causing CCD in hives in proximity, unfortunately for the believers.
Two pages of cunningly worded argument aimed at boxing MP into some kind of corner, will not change that.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

Cerezha, just in case you missed it:... MP wrote: The majority of losses were from varroa.

Yeah, I know, but Mark stated (my mistake, I mixed up with Mr. Palmer) that 10% is "pre-varroa" loss. So, it is difficult to me understand how varroa-loss may be at "pre-varroa" level? Could you explain?
What is your normal loses?

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Cerezha you misquoted me in the above post. I would prefer in future that if I am quoted, only the words I said please. IE, don't attribute the words of others, to me.

Originally Posted by cerezha

Yeah, I know, but Mark stated (my mistake, I mixed up with Mr. Palmer) that 10% is "pre-varroa" loss. So, it is difficult to me understand how varroa-loss may be at "pre-varroa" level? Could you explain?

What's difficult about it? Not sure what you want me to explain. Specially since I didn't make the statement.

My losses?

I have 2 separate groups of hives, treatment free, and treated. The losses of the TF hives are a little hard to define because they have been started from just one hive and built up by constant splitting. However I have slowed this process over the last year & allowed to die anything that was overrun by varroa, except for 4 hives I took out of the program and treated. All up losses over the last two years are something around 50%, depending on how and when you define hive numbers.

Of the treated hives, losses are basically zero this year. However it depends how you define a loss. Couple hives got robbed due to poor management on my part and by the time I picked it up, one was queenless and almost a write off. However I combined a nuc with it, so would you call this a loss? Don't know. There's been other hives I've intervened to save such as one 2 days ago that had a drone laying queen I requeened it.
So if you are talking about actual complete losses of the treated hives, I could claim zero this year. But if you count ones that had to have a nuc added, or some other major intervention, 3 to 5 hives depending how you define it, so out of my 100 or so hives, 3 to 5 percent.

This does not make me a better beekeeper than anyone in the US with higher losses. US is a much harder climate for bees, and the commercial beekeepers do not have the luxury of only running 100 hives and being able to give a lot of time to each one.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

....What is the point of your question?

Oldtimer, wow - zero % loses! Sorry for misquoting you - I was thinking that it is clear which part is yours and which is not (corrected). Sorry about that. As for my question - it is related to our discussion. I was impressed with 10% "pre-varroa" loss, which I interpreted as a "baseline" - everything above may be interpreted as varroa-related, but Mr. Palmer indicated that most his loses (within 10%) were from varroa. I could not understand how his loses may be at "pre-varroa" level with varroa? To me it means that 10% shows just fluctuation, which may be anything (apparently including varroa). I asked you to see if your data could help to establish more realistic baseline. By the way - thank you for sharing! Zero loses indicated your beekeeping practice is great! It looks like, loses above baseline (which is not established yet) may be attributed to inefficient treatment and/or poor beekeeping practice as well as to other factors including chemicals, stress, immune system compromise etc. Many thanks for detailed comment.

Loses below baseline - good beekeeping practice! Now we just need to establish the baseline.

Last edited by cerezha; 05-17-2013 at 03:12 AM.
Reason: added last paragraph

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

No idea I didn't write the reports. Better question is. How many acres did not get adequate bees to maximize pollination. My bet is all of them.
I know I saw at least one report on a broker that was not able to fill contracts for even long standing customers. How many acres did not get served. I do not know.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

Oh. An all time record crop. What a surprise I thought there were stories everywhere.

Well actually there were lots of stories. Hindsight can help us judge how well balanced they were. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Dan Rather probably wont bring the cameras back to the Almond orchards to do a follow up on the nut set.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

In the light of THIS discussion, it is easy: 10% natural loss, not from neonics, not from varroa; 20% - non-best beekeeping practice, which may include everything including varroa, chemicals, pollination (transportation), stress etc.

I'm not sure you can call 'pre-varroa' natural losses. There were pesticide kills of colonies prior to varroa and neonics. There was AFB. There was PPB.

I think varroa and the viruses they transmit are a moving target when it comes to control. From the few anecdotal reports I hear it sounds like the beekeepers that assume they have varroa and have adjusted the way they keep bees are successful. Those who state they treated for varroa and done things as they always have are sometimes surprised by large losses.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Almonds Update:

May 2013

The monthly shipment report was released today and California shipped 129.5
million pounds of almonds in April, down 12.8% from shipments of 148.5
million a year ago. Domestic shipments were up by nearly 13% to 51.3
million pounds, but exports at 78.2 million pounds were sharply weaker with
very few bright spots.

The Subjective Estimate was released last week forecasting the 2013 crop at
2.00 billion pounds. The market was uninspired by the news. A few weeks
earlier new crop had already been slated by a California exporter report at
1.96 billion. The Subjective seemed to confirm the outlook. Current crop got
a bump out of the new crop forecasts, but subsequently slipping back as
sellers emerged and buyers remained reticent.

http://www.skamberg.com/almonds.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that it is premature to make any conclusions regarding Cal Almonds-2013. As a commodity, almonds are subject of heavy "political/economical" games. It is absolutely not in the interest of almond producers to report decrease in the crop production. We will know the real situation next April, when supply will exhausted (hopefully not!)

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by TWall

... I hear it sounds like the beekeepers that assume they have varroa and have adjusted the way they keep bees are successful. Those who state they treated for varroa and done things as they always have are sometimes surprised by large losses. Tom

Tom, I agree with you. As for "pre-varroa" I was trying to establish a threshold in attempt to determine what is "regular" lost without a varroa? As for varroa treatment, I read some very nice detailed report (sorry, no references - it is somewhere on beesource) comparing all our "tricks" against varroa including all chemicals, sugar powder, screened board etc. In my opinion, that report was very comprehensive and I do believe in it. They indicated that
(1) In Southern-Western part of US, ANY treatment is not effective.
(2) in Northern-Eastern US part - only 2 chemicals (I forgot the names) are approximately 10% effective.
(3) that's it!

In this sense, best beekeeping practice approach, is sounded more effective than chemical treatment alone, which is no surprise, right?

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Originally Posted by cerezha

In my opinion, that report was very comprehensive and I do believe in it. They indicated that
(1) In Southern-Western part of US, ANY treatment is not effective.
(2) in Northern-Eastern US part - only 2 chemicals (I forgot the names) are approximately 10% effective.

Skewed data. Surely you cannot believe it. It would only take one hive to be saved by treating for mites, to alter that claim. What's happening, is not all the right questions are being asked when the data is collected. First, most of the respondents are part timers. Their hives are doing well, so they don't treat. They see one with noticeable mites, they treat it. Problem being, by the time it's noticeable to them, the hive is probably past saving. Then there's all those treatments that are done, but not properly.

How do I know this is going on? I am an inspector for my government and looking at other peoples hives I see it all the time.

That is why results will vary from one beekeeper to another, in the same area.

But if a survey was taken, those beekeepers with bees that did well and they felt no need to treat them, will put them down as untreated survivors. But the ones with hives that did get sick, and were finally treated but died anyway, are put down as treated hives that died.

When I'm inspecting, I'm constantly (daily) coming across dying hives, that when the beekeeper has finally noticed, has belatedly put some treatment into. The treatment is often not done right. I get paid to inspect, not do their beekeeping for them. But none the less, if they are there and ask me to, I will sometimes make a few little tweaks, that will save the hive, which would otherwise have perished.

It is not the beekeepers fault, they lack experience, and simply do the best they can.

Other thing, I'll sometimes find a hive crawling with mites and in trouble. I tell the owner, and they say, can't have any mites, I just treated it. It will always turn out they 1. treated ineffectively, and 2. didn't check afterwards to see if it worked.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

...This is the exact same Subject Estimate as last May 2012, which was also at 2.00 billion pounds, but 6 percent above last year's actual production of 1.89 billion pounds....

Do I understand correctly that The Subjective Estimate overestimate for the year 2012 and now the article is concerns that it is again overestimated for 2013? My English is not good on such subject, sorry if I misunderstood.

Also, it looks like the increase related to increase of almonds acreage.

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Yes it appears bearing acreage increased by 20,000 meaning that the additional hive demand was probably in the 30 to 40,000 hive range.
Bees clearly were a bit short this year, no doubt about it, but there clearly had to have been a lot of good hives out there to pick up the slack or they wouldn't be projecting a record crop.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Total production is useless. yield per acre is what you need to show.
Yeild per acre 2011, 2670 lbs. 2012 2560

In 2011 2.06 billion lbs of almonds where produced on 760,000 acres yet in 2012 only 1.98 billion lbs where produced even though ti was grow on 780,000 acres. 20,000 more acres required to keep the losses at only 80 million lbs.